Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   NOT a GOAT thread, but Fed is better than Sampras (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=420767)

Fedfan34 04-16-2012 05:56 PM

NOT a GOAT thread, but Fed is better than Sampras
 
So this is not a GOAT thread, I'm not claiming that Federer is the greatest of all time, as Ralph and Djesus still have plenty of time themselves to man up and take it for themselves. Some will say oldies like Pancho Gonzales or Bill Tilden or Laver could take Fed on. I'm not commenting on that.

This thread is simply to move the Petetards from the dark ages into the 21st century. Roger is better than Pete in almost every way possible. Even his volleys are more natural than Pete's, and he has to volley off of balls that are coming MUCH faster at him than anything Pete had to volley off of. Seriously, watch Sampr-*** v. Rafter 1998 US Open. If such creme puff returns were coming off his opponent's racket, hell even Nadal would serve and volley.

The ONLY thing Pete has over Roger is the serve. THAT'S IT. Time for the flat earthers, civil war re-enacters, and birthers of the Petetard movement to come out of the shadows of the Bronze Age of 90s tennis into the light of the modern game.

jaggy 04-16-2012 05:57 PM

But Pete dominated his rivals.

Seth 04-16-2012 05:58 PM

Dumb thread is dumb.

jackson vile 04-16-2012 06:04 PM


fed_rulz 04-16-2012 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaggy (Post 6468495)
But Pete dominated his rivals.

really? I like how you left out Krajicek, Stich and Edberg.... hell, Ferreira pwned Sampras indoors. Krajicek was b!tch slapping Sampras at every opportunity (leading 6-2) until he got injured, and sampras collected the last 2 of his wins.

also, it helps to have no rivalries on your weaker surface. Pete got torn himself torn new ones many times on clay, in the early rounds, so he never met his "rivals" on clay.

fed_rulz 04-16-2012 06:34 PM

comparing Sampras to Federer is like comparing VW to Ferrari. I just hope Federer obliterates the reminder of the sampras records, just for the kicks.

merwy 04-16-2012 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedfan34 (Post 6468494)
So this is not a GOAT thread, I'm not claiming that Federer is the greatest of all time, as Ralph and Djesus still have plenty of time themselves to man up and take it for themselves. Some will say oldies like Pancho Gonzales or Bill Tilden or Laver could take Fed on. I'm not commenting on that.

This thread is simply to move the Petetards from the dark ages into the 20th century. Roger is better than Pete in almost every way possible. Even his volleys are more natural than Pete's, and he has to volley off of balls that are coming MUCH faster at him than anything Pete had to volley off of. Seriously, watch Sampr-*** v. Rafter 1998 US Open. If such creme puff returns were coming off his opponent's racket, hell even Nadal would serve and volley.

The ONLY thing Pete has over Roger is the serve. THAT'S IT. Time for the flat earthers, civil war re-enacters, and birthers of the Petetard movement to come out of the shadows of the Bronze Age of 90s tennis into the light of the modern game.

Although I agree with you in that Federer is better than Sampras.. this thread is just asking to get flamed. I have no idea why you created this thread, it is completely irrelevant to anything that is currently going on in tennis, it looks as if you're just trying to annoy Sampras fans (i.e. trolling)


Quote:

Originally Posted by fed_rulz (Post 6468564)
comparing Sampras to Federer is like comparing VW to Ferrari. I just hope Federer obliterates the reminder of the sampras records, just for the kicks.

And I don't even know what to say about this. It used to be just the Nadal fans that were stupid trolls, but it seems that the *******s are making a decent effort to obtain the same reputation..

monfed 04-16-2012 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fed_rulz (Post 6468560)
really? I like how you left out Krajicek, Stich and Edberg.... hell, Ferreira pwned Sampras indoors. Krajicek was b!tch slapping Sampras at every opportunity (leading 6-2) until he got injured, and sampras collected the last 2 of his wins.

also, it helps to have no rivalries on your weaker surface. Pete got torn himself torn new ones many times on clay, in the early rounds, so he never met his "rivals" on clay.

Wait a minute. How did Crampras ever get beaten let alone trail a H2H since his serve could never be broken?

Fedfan34 04-16-2012 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merwy (Post 6468572)
Although I agree with you in that Federer is better than Sampras.. this thread is just asking to get flamed. I have no idea why you created this thread, it is completely irrelevant to anything that is currently going on in tennis, it looks as if you're just trying to annoy Sampras fans (i.e. trolling)




And I don't even know what to say about this. It used to be just the Nadal fans that were stupid trolls, but it seems that the *******s are making a decent effort to obtain the same reputation..


I like to state truths that tick people off. There is no question about that. But the fact of the matter is that I *am* stating truths.

Pete Sampras was the best player of the 90s. There's no question. But that statement requires many asterisks and sidenotes along with it, such as the fact that he could not win a match at the French Open to save his life in the latter part of his career, and lost to some pretty forgettable players like the great Yzaga at important events like...the AUSTRALIAN OPEN.

Pete Sampras was the greatest champion to walk on the courts of Wimbledon. Again, 7 titles means we can't question that statement. But again, we have to consider that Pete was losing so quickly at the French that he had so much more time to recover in the wake of that tournament such that by the time the rest of the field arrived on grass tired from actually you know, playing at the French Open, Petros started off nice and fresh from the extra time.

Pete Sampras had a winning record against his rival Agassi. Again, no question, but firstly, Pete lost on clay so much at the French he rarely had to play him there in the latter parts of his career, thus skewing the head to head in his favor at the slams. And Nadal is a VASTLY superior player to Agassi.

Thanks for the explanation of what trolling is by the way.

DjokovicForTheWin 04-16-2012 07:03 PM

The whole game has changed today. Comparing the volleys Pete had to face vs. what Fed has to face is like, well, there is no comparison. Ball is moving much faster today and Pete would have looked like a mediocre volleyer in today's game.

BevelDevil 04-16-2012 10:12 PM

Yeah, Fed is better than Sampras, but don't most people think that already?

What I wonder about is Laver vs. Sampras.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedfan34 (Post 6468494)
If such creme puff returns were coming off his opponent's racket, hell even Nadal would serve and volley.

Did Agassi have creme puff returns?

10is 04-16-2012 10:52 PM

Why make a thread to state something that is blatantly obvious? Threads of this nature seemingly have the opposite effect (at least for me) since it makes the fanbase of said player appear insecure about their man's legacy.

Sid_Vicious 04-16-2012 11:01 PM

lol. 20th century.

monfed 04-16-2012 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10is (Post 6468881)
Why make a thread to state something that is blatantly obvious? Threads of this nature seemingly have the opposite effect (at least for me) since it makes the fanbase of said player appear insecure about their man's legacy.

Yea ok but what's up with your avatar? Why not change it to something less distasteful?

sbengte 04-16-2012 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monfed (Post 6468884)
Yea ok but what's up with your avatar? Why not change it to something less distasteful?

Speaking of which , is that a photoshop product or a real picture of someone ? If so, who ?

DeShaun 04-16-2012 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BevelDevil (Post 6468848)
Yeah, Fed is better than Sampras, but don't most people think that already?

What I wonder about is Laver vs. Sampras.




Did Agassi have creme puff returns?


Rod could pass from anywhere on court. On either wing, from whatever depth. He had "all the strokes." Pete's first volley had better be a really good one. Rod could move--great wheels. Not only could he get to the ball, but have an arsenal of shots on Rolodex ready to be called on in stroking it.

Povl Carstensen 04-17-2012 01:32 AM

I guess it is pretty obvious, because the clay record seals the deal...

zagor 04-17-2012 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedfan34 (Post 6468494)
This thread is simply to move the Petetards from the dark ages into the 20th century.

Sampras won 13 out of his 14 slams in the 20th century genius.

P.S. now that's an example of a *fact*.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedfan34 (Post 6468612)
I like to state truths that tick people off. There is no question about that. But the fact of the matter is that I *am* stating truths.

No, the fact of the matter is that you're stating your *opinion* on who's the better player between two of the best players of the open era.

federerGOAT 04-17-2012 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedfan34 (Post 6468494)
So this is not a GOAT thread, I'm not claiming that Federer is the greatest of all time, as Ralph and Djesus still have plenty of time themselves to man up and take it for themselves. Some will say oldies like Pancho Gonzales or Bill Tilden or Laver could take Fed on. I'm not commenting on that.

This thread is simply to move the Petetards from the dark ages into the 20th century. Roger is better than Pete in almost every way possible. Even his volleys are more natural than Pete's, and he has to volley off of balls that are coming MUCH faster at him than anything Pete had to volley off of. Seriously, watch Sampr-*** v. Rafter 1998 US Open. If such creme puff returns were coming off his opponent's racket, hell even Nadal would serve and volley.

The ONLY thing Pete has over Roger is the serve. THAT'S IT. Time for the flat earthers, civil war re-enacters, and birthers of the Petetard movement to come out of the shadows of the Bronze Age of 90s tennis into the light of the modern game.

Pete has NOTHING over Roger. Not even the serve. Pete's 2nd serve is incredibly overrated, its as if nobody could break him ever. Roger has a better 1st and 2nd serve with more disguise.

josofo 04-17-2012 04:35 AM

pete played in a much deeper era.

he had to play against, courier, chang, stich, ivanisavic, edberg, becker, agassi, kafeltinkov, rafter, henman, enqvist, krajeck.

the 2nd or 3rd best player from 2004 to 2006 when fed won 7 of his slams was andy roddick. fed beat baghdatis in a slam final.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse